Laserfiche WebLink
primary samples collected from wells MW-10, MW-13, and MW-14 during the <br /> monitoring period and were flagged as a suspected laboratory contaminants. During the <br /> first quarter 2009 monitoring event, a duplicate sample was collected from well MW-lA <br /> and labeled DUP. As shown on Table 2-2, with the exception of hexavalent chromium, <br /> the duplicate sample analyses yielded good correlation(within 5%) with the primary <br /> sample results. Review of first quarter 2009 sampling dates and laboratory analytical <br /> certificates indicates that all of the laboratory analyses were completed within required <br /> holding times. Based on the results of the laboratory QA/QC analyses, it is concluded <br /> that the laboratory data generated for the first quarter 2009 monitoring period are <br /> generally acceptable and the water quality samples collected from the Forward Unit <br /> appear to be representative of water quality at the site. <br /> 2.1.3 Groundwater Elevations and Contours <br /> Prior to purging and sampling, each well was sounded for water depth using a weighted <br /> electronic sounder to an accuracy of 0.01 foot, and the static water level was recorded on <br /> a Well Data Sheet(Appendix Q. The groundwater elevations were calculated for each <br /> well by subtracting the depth-to-water measurement from the top-of-casing reference <br /> elevation. The current groundwater elevation data for the Forward Unit is summarized in <br /> Table 2-3. <br /> The groundwater elevation data obtained during the first quarter 2009 monitoring period <br /> were used to generate the groundwater elevation contour map shown on Figure <br /> 2-1, which indicates that groundwater generally flows to the north-northeast towards the <br /> Austin Unit, at an average hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.001 ft/ft. <br /> To calculate the approximate linear groundwater flow velocity for the site, conservative <br /> assumptions were used, including a hydraulic conductivity of 875 gallons per day per <br /> square foot(0.04 cm/sec) and an estimated effective porosity of 35 percent(CH2M Hill <br /> 2000). An estimated groundwater flow velocity was calculated using Darcy's Law: <br /> Ki cm 0.001 sec– ft <br /> V = —_ [(0.04 —)* ]* 2835 - 0.324 ft/day <br /> ne sec 0.35 cm – day <br /> where: V=Groundwater flow velocity. <br /> K=Hydraulic conductivity of the water-bearing unit(0.04 cm/sec). <br /> i=Hydraulic gradient: i;z 0.001 for the site during the first quarter 2009. <br /> ne=Effective porosity(ne=0.35);an estimated value. <br /> The groundwater flow rate is calculated to be 0.324 feet/day(118 feet/year). <br /> 2.1.4 Detection Monitoring Program <br /> Field and laboratory results for the groundwater monitoring wells for the first quarter <br /> 2009 are summarized in Table 2-2 and Appendix D presents time-series charts of select <br /> parameters. As shown on Table 2-2, excluding suspected field/laboratory contaminants <br /> DA2009_00I7\FA iQ09.doc <br /> 5 Geologic Associates <br />